Understanding Defender Subtypes in Bullying: Implications for Effective Anti-Bullying Interventions

Abstract Although some anti-bullying programs stimulate defending victims, it is unclear whether defending effectively supports victims. One problem hampering research is that measures of defending not only reflect defending by pure defenders who do not have any other role in bullying. They also reflect defending by (1) low profile defenders who also are victims or outsiders and who can be assumed to lack social dominance and to only defend indirectly (comforting victims rather than confronting bullies); (2) antisocial defenders who also are probullies (bullies, assistants, and reinforcers) and who may lack the prosocial attitude that underlies defending actual victims; and (3) ambivalent defenders who simultaneously are low profile and antisocial defenders. Because the severity of such a contamination of defending measures depends on the prevalence of defender subtypes, we used peer nominations to classify the defenders among 6554 Dutch adolescents ( M age = 13.3, SD = .5; 48% boys) into defender subtypes and in terms of their defending strategies (indirect, direct, or indirect/direct). To test the assumptions mentioned above, we compared the defender types to each other and to victims, outsiders, and probullies in terms of social dominance and, as a proxy for a prosocial attitude, social preference. Most defenders either were low profile defenders who defended indirectly and lacked social dominance, or antisocial or ambivalent defenders who lacked social preference. Accordingly, only a minority of defenders may effectively support victimized peers. We encourage future researchers to differentiate between defender subtypes when examining defending effectiveness and when stimulating defending.